Shut It Down!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Kind of like, if someone get's a hold of someone else's journal and starts passing it around a class, some kids might find it personally wrong on their part to not try to stop it.

A good analogy imo; it comes across to me in much the same way as bullying.  Bullies come in all shapes and sizes and their targets can be the most popular kids or smartest or nicest or richest or whatever.  The internet in many ways can be the equivalent of turning the 100 lb weakling into a 200+ lb hulk.  Cyber bullying is wrong whether the target is a young kid or a multimillion dollar corporation and whether it done by a prepubescent sociopath or a huge company trying to take out their rival and save money avoiding the need to actually improve their product/service by destroying the rival's reputation or by someone who tries to justify their desire to hurt by claiming it is good for them.

Even if a bully chooses a target that is strong enough to not be hurt, the bullying is still wrong.  Even if exposing confidential papers only makes the Church look good, the exposure is still wrong.  Expectation of privacy by individuals and companies should be respected because privacy is a valuable attribute that all humanity deserves, expect in extraordinary circumstances, imo.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

A good analogy imo; it comes across to me in much the same way as bullying.  Bullies come in all shapes and sizes and their targets can be the most popular kids or smartest or nicest or richest or whatever.  The internet in many ways can be the equivalent of turning the 100 lb weakling into a 200+ lb hulk.  Cyber bullying is wrong whether the target is a young kid or a multimillion dollar corporation and whether it done by a prepubescent sociopath or a huge company trying to take out their rival and save money avoiding the need to actually improve their product/service by destroying the rival's reputation or by someone who tries to justify their desire to hurt by claiming it is good for them.

Even if a bully chooses a target that is strong enough to not be hurt, the bullying is still wrong.  Even if exposing confidential papers only makes the Church look good, the exposure is still wrong.  Expectation of privacy by individuals and companies should be respected because privacy is a valuable attribute that all humanity deserves, expect in extraordinary circumstances, imo.

If there's nothing there to reveal or to hide, then why the fear or why call it bullying?  The main thing I've seen that was offensive is the posting of the pay stubs (some may disagree, but that is too personal, IMO).  But I still wouldn't call that bullying.

This wouldn't be news (the pay stubs) though if church members hadn't been told numerous times that there are no paid clergy in our church.  However, I'm still not in favor of publishing that type of personal info.

But it seems the leaks will continue and are we really all going to ignore them or refuse to discuss them here?    

I think it's opened up some good and interesting discussions.  I know it's helped me come to a better understanding to read the varied comments and discussions rather than just read the leaks and comments elsewhere about them.

Edited January 29, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

I am not the least fearful of it.

Bullying can be attempted by the weakling without any realistic chance of hurting the target, but just because it isn't likely to hurt doesn't stop it from being bullying, does it?

Think of it this way...a man for whatever reasons decides a young woman is a slut and posts an anonymous page asking anyone with pictures of the woman, especially any nude selfie pictures or whatever they are called to post them.  What gets posted is a lot of nice or neutral pictures of the woman that she had personally given to friends without any intent to put them online publicly.  There is nothing indicating this young woman is promiscuous in spite of the man's efforts.

In my view, the man is still a cyber bully even if his campaign failed and those who posted to his website without checking with the young woman first to see if she wanted those pictures, drawing attention to his campaign to bully, were foolish if they were trying to prove him wrong by doing so and disrespectful of their friend.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Calm

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

How cute, how clever to ignore the main issue.

Sirrah, the complete temple endowment is a matter of public record, so that makes it legit to discuss in THIS forum?

Why I am glad you think I am cute.  

but I wasn't trying to be intentionally snarky.  I answered your question the way I feel about it.  

[Stargazer]

No, don't shut it down.  There's no reason this can't be discussed.  That's my vote, anyway.

 

[cdowis]

I am going to ask all of you please to carefully read the OP before posting a comment in this topic.

Thanks.

Edited January 29, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

del

Edited January 29, 2017 by cdowis

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I am going to ask all of you please to carefully read the OP before posting a comment in this topic.

Thanks.

Shouldn't you edit your OP?  It's a little late, asking people on page 2 to read the OP more carefully before posting, dontcha think?

[JulieM]

I do think it's nice to come here and discuss what's going on in other places online (and many that are not giving fair or balanced opinions on this topic).  I know that reading many of the different view on here helped me look at the information in a different light than what's presented most other places.  

Many brought up faithful thoughts or reasons why something that was leaked may appear to be one way (negative) but is really for another more positive purpose (hope that makes sense).  I didn't see that happening on many of the other discussion boards.  It helped me step back and look differently at least at some of what was leaked.

But if the mods shut down discussions on the leaks, I'll abide by that.  I just don't like censorship because that may just lead to more questions or suspicions as to why we can't discuss it.

Edited January 29, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, cdowis said:

I feel that we would all agree that this Board has a responsibility to demonstrate and maintain respect for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  The Board Guidelines are designed to show respectful discussions.  For example, discussion of temple content are prohibited.

Although not directly related, I feel that the Board should forbid discussions of confidential information that was ILLEGALLY taken from the church.  These leaks are specifically designed to breed contempt for the apostles and prophets of the Lord, and the Restore Church.  This material was stolen from the church and discussion of their contents should be banned from this forum.

Any comments, observations?

 

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

I am going to ask all of you please to carefully read the OP before posting a comment in this topic.

Thanks.

Did I miss something?
You said " This material was stolen from the church and discussion of their contents should be banned from this forum."
and "Any comments, observations?"

I haven't seen anyone go off topic on this.  I happen to disagree with you (although apparently the MODs are deliberating over your objection).
Not sure who you feel isn't following the OP.

[Gray]

It seems to me that if they can discuss this in the Deseret News, we can discuss it here.

[LittleNipper]

As an outsider, I don't understand any of this. The Holy of Holies in the Old Testament was clearly described, along with all the procedures which were carried out in and around that Temple.  Nothing was banned other than who could visit various parts and when. The fact that the curtain was torn in two meant a change and not for more secrecy I would imagine. Certainly, this is your temple and your facility. I'm just pointing out that it is outside even the norm of THE TEMPLE that once existed in Jerusalem.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Did I miss something?
You said " This material was stolen from the church and discussion of their contents should be banned from this forum."
and "Any comments, observations?"

I haven't seen anyone go off topic on this.  I happen to disagree with you (although apparently the MODs are deliberating over your objection).
Not sure who you feel isn't following the OP.

I'm guessing he's referring to the note added by the mods that the thread would be locked while they deliberate.  

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The fact that the curtain was torn in two meant a change and not for more secrecy I would imagine.

The veil represents the separation between God and man due to death and mortality.
Christ's death and resurrection represents that man can now return from death and mortality into God's presence.

The veil still exists because mortality and death still exist.  God is not constantly before our faces, nor are we constantly in his presence.
Through Christ we can part it and pass through.

[Tacenda]

Tomorrow, Radiowest is discussing the leaks. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/mormonleaks  I don't think this is a topic that shouldn't be discussed, especially when there is so much already in the media. By hiding the fact, you create more interest in the "why" it's hidden factor. But do understand cdowis's issue with things like this on a mostly LDS board that is not critical of the church. 

I predict the leaders will mention them in conference too. Usually they'll bring things up like this in GC to dispel rumours.

[cinepro]

I support the idea, just so I can post this every time the subject comes up:

 

[cdowis]

On 1/28/2017 at 1:29 PM, Thinking said:

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that there is difference between receiving privileged information from an inside source and actually breaking in (physically or electronically) and stealing the information.

OK, so you see a difference between stealing money, a computer, etc from your employer, and breaking into the someone's business and stealing.

How very progressive.  Anyway, the latter is the same as a theft, but also includes breaking and entering, two crimes instead of one.

Edited January 29, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

del

Edited January 29, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

I do think it's nice to come here and discuss what's going on in other places online (and many that are not giving fair or balanced opinions on this topic).  I know that reading many of the different view on here helped me look at the information in a different light than what's presented most other places.  

Do you suggest that we also open up about the Temple film  (excluding content).  We would give comments on the acting and quality of production.  How much are the actors paid -- according to union wages?  And the other production people -- are they volunteers or paid professionals.d  How much did they spend on catering -- did they go cheap or expensive.

Perhaps make suggestions on a new temple film and how to reduce the budget in order to save money that can go to the poor.   This will help you "look at the information in a different light than what's presented most other places. "

When we now go to the temple, we will see the temple endowment film in a whole new way!!!!  "He spoke with a Utah accent"

The leaked documents help us to see the church in a new light, and we can do the same to the temple experience.

Edited January 29, 2017 by cdowis

[CA Steve]

If discussions about the leaked materials are prohibited here, all that will happen is forum participants here, both lurkers and posters who are interested in the subject, will go elsewhere to find a discussion. So even if the OP has a valid point, you are just going to eliminate public postings of views on this from those who think such leaks should not be publicly released.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

I am going to ask all of you please to carefully read the OP before posting a comment in this topic.

Thanks.

 

19 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I am referring to such comments as "Temple content is not the same as leaked documents", and "Why are you afraid for an open discussion" etc  These issues were specifically included in the OP.

 

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Do you suggest that we also open up Temple content.  This will help you "look at the information in a different light than what's presented most other places. "  We would be able to give you insights into the hidden meaning of the temple endowment, and give comments on the acting and quality of production.  

Perhaps make suggestions on a new temple film and how to reduce the budget and save money that can go to the poor.

I'm confused.  Do you want us likening these leaks to a potential leak of temple content?
Bottom line, the leaks were wrong, but they contained no sacred information.  The information contained in the leaks are now part of the public knowledge of the workings of the Church.  There is no reason we cannot discuss the workings of the Church on this board.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Do you suggest that we also open up about the Temple film  (excluding content).  We would give comments on the acting and quality of production.  How much are the actors paid -- according to union wages?  And the other production people -- are they volunteers or paid professionals.

Perhaps make suggestions on a new temple film and how to reduce the budget in order to save money that can go to the poor.   This will help you "look at the information in a different light than what's presented most other places. "

I thought you have made it clear that this is not a discussion of sacred information or links (temple)?  

Even the title of this thread is too extreme, IMO.  When you shut down discussion on a topic that is not sacred, people will just go elsewhere to get their information.

My point was just that it was nice to come here and see both sides discussed.  It helped me to see the leaks in a different light (the info) and to stop and think about some faithful reasons why some things may be done that first appear negative (when leaked).

Maybe do as is done with temple threads?  Don't allow any links to be posted to the actual Mormon Leaks website or documents.  But allow discussions about them.  I don't know if that would work though. That might be a good compromise....

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by JulieM

[cdowis]

Please read my last post.

[6EQUJ5]

What @cdowis is proposing is very similar to CNN lying in trying to tell people that it was illegal for citizens to review any materials released by wikileaks.  

If we ignore information that has become public we allow our enemies to own the discussion and frame things to their advantage.  There is no upside to censoring this information on the board.  None at all.  In fact, censorship would only imply that we have something to hide.  We don't.

I hope the mods ignore cdowis's well-intentioned suggestion.  

[cdowis]

36 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

What @cdowis is proposing is very similar to CNN lying in trying to tell people that it was illegal for citizens to review any materials released by wikileaks.   

PLEASE READ THE OP AND FIND OUT WHAT I AM ACTUALLY SAYING.

thankyousoverymuch